current SecNav comments are worth looking at
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
Incoming SECNAV Randy Forbes, is a staunch advocate of a larger (borderline 350) ship fleet.
https://news.usni.org/2016/11/09/randy-forbes-is-the-favorite-for-trumps-secretary-of-the-navy
https://news.usni.org/2016/11/09/randy-forbes-is-the-favorite-for-trumps-secretary-of-the-navy
The Navy is leaning toward Ecalibur as the replacement for LRLAP at approximately a quarter the cost of the latter. HVP tech which would be applicable for current Navy cannon and EMRGs is not deemed mature enough.
Excalibur would entail modifications to the AGS which is originally designed for LRLAP rounds.
https://news.usni.org/2016/12/13/raytheon-excalibur-round-set-replace-lrlap-zumwalts#more-22860
Excalibur would entail modifications to the AGS which is originally designed for LRLAP rounds.
https://news.usni.org/2016/12/13/raytheon-excalibur-round-set-replace-lrlap-zumwalts#more-22860
Littoral Combat Ship: The US Navy’s ‘Alleged Warship’ | The Diplomat
Some in the Trump Administration defend it and scorned Ash Carter's edict to limit LCS numbers to 40 - but I wonder if McCain & Co of the Senate Armed Services Committee will push back so only 40 are built.
Some in the Trump Administration defend it and scorned Ash Carter's edict to limit LCS numbers to 40 - but I wonder if McCain & Co of the Senate Armed Services Committee will push back so only 40 are built.
And what would they replace it with? The politicos like to grandstand and LCS and LCS/FG is just another political football. The critical reviews emanate from agencies whose job it is to find fault and often nitpick, exagerrate and highlight issues and problems that have already been fixed or are being addressed.
I really don't think there is the time, money and political will to go back to the drawing board.
In the meantime, warts and all, the Navy sees the benefits of LCS integrating into the current force structure.
https://news.usni.org/2016/12/12/na...unmanned-systems-subs-into-new-battle-network
USN releases plan for a 355 ship navy
The Navy released a new fleet plan that calls for 355 ships, outlining a massive increase in the size of its high-end large surface combatant and attack submarine fleets but a modest increase in its planned amphibious ship fleet, according to a Dec. 14 summary of the assessment.
The findings of the latest Force Structure Assessment adds 47 ships to the Navy’s battle force over the 308-ship figure from a 2014 FSA.
It’s not just the number of ships but the mix of types that shifts in the new plan. The 350-ship plan doesn’t pad the numbers with support craft and smaller warships. In fact, the target for “small surface combatants” such as frigates — which in practice means the controversial Littoral Combat Ship — stays at 52, as in past plans. Instead, the 355-ship plan is heavy on heavy hitters, adding
one more aircraft carrier, which would increase the flattop force — the flagships of the fleet since 1941 — from 11 to 12. All aircraft carriers are built by Newport News in Virginia.
18 more attack submarines, arguably the capital ships of the 21st century, going from 48 to 66, a whopping 38 percent increase. Subs are built by Newport News in Virginia and Electric Boat in New England (including Courtney’s district).
16 more destroyers and cruisers, the workhorses of both missile defense and missile attack, going from 88 to 104 “large surface combatants,” an 18 percent increase. These ships are built by Bath Iron Works in Maine and Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss.
4 more amphibious warships to deploy Marines, from 34 to 38, a 12 percent increase. “Gators” are mainly built by Ingalls.
8 more support ships: two Expeditionary Support Bases (né Mobile Landing Platforms) to support Marine Corps landings, doubling the ESB force from three ships to six; three Combat Logistics Force ships to keep the fleet supplied, a modest increase from 29 to 32; and two command and support ships, an increase from 21 to 23. NASSCO in San Diego is the leading yard for support ships.
Only the extremes of the naval spectrum remain unchanged. The relatively cheap small surface combatants (e.g. LCS) remain unchanged at 52, and the immensely expensive nuclear-missile submarines (the future Columbia class) remain at 12.
https://news.usni.org/2016/12/16/navy-wants-grow-fleet-355-ships-47-hull-increase-previous-goal
The Navy released a new fleet plan that calls for 355 ships, outlining a massive increase in the size of its high-end large surface combatant and attack submarine fleets but a modest increase in its planned amphibious ship fleet, according to a Dec. 14 summary of the assessment.
The findings of the latest Force Structure Assessment adds 47 ships to the Navy’s battle force over the 308-ship figure from a 2014 FSA.
It’s not just the number of ships but the mix of types that shifts in the new plan. The 350-ship plan doesn’t pad the numbers with support craft and smaller warships. In fact, the target for “small surface combatants” such as frigates — which in practice means the controversial Littoral Combat Ship — stays at 52, as in past plans. Instead, the 355-ship plan is heavy on heavy hitters, adding
one more aircraft carrier, which would increase the flattop force — the flagships of the fleet since 1941 — from 11 to 12. All aircraft carriers are built by Newport News in Virginia.
18 more attack submarines, arguably the capital ships of the 21st century, going from 48 to 66, a whopping 38 percent increase. Subs are built by Newport News in Virginia and Electric Boat in New England (including Courtney’s district).
16 more destroyers and cruisers, the workhorses of both missile defense and missile attack, going from 88 to 104 “large surface combatants,” an 18 percent increase. These ships are built by Bath Iron Works in Maine and Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss.
4 more amphibious warships to deploy Marines, from 34 to 38, a 12 percent increase. “Gators” are mainly built by Ingalls.
8 more support ships: two Expeditionary Support Bases (né Mobile Landing Platforms) to support Marine Corps landings, doubling the ESB force from three ships to six; three Combat Logistics Force ships to keep the fleet supplied, a modest increase from 29 to 32; and two command and support ships, an increase from 21 to 23. NASSCO in San Diego is the leading yard for support ships.
Only the extremes of the naval spectrum remain unchanged. The relatively cheap small surface combatants (e.g. LCS) remain unchanged at 52, and the immensely expensive nuclear-missile submarines (the future Columbia class) remain at 12.
https://news.usni.org/2016/12/16/navy-wants-grow-fleet-355-ships-47-hull-increase-previous-goal
One hopes that the prospect of stuffing the inventory with shiny new hardware is weighed against the less sexy but essential stuff that needs funding.
https://news.usni.org/2016/12/06/de...against-growing-military-size-over-capability
DEPSECDEF Work Cautions Trump Team Against Growing Military Size Over Capability
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The deputy secretary of defense told the incoming Trump administration that repealing the 2011 Budget Control Act spending caps would be a good start for helping the military but that additional money would likely only fill in budget holes rather than buy more ships and planes.
Bob Work, speaking Monday at the Future Strategy Forum at the United States Navy Memorial, said that even as much as $88 billion a year in additional defense spending would simply fill in “holes” in the budget rather than grow the fleet, and he advised against buying more platforms and people before these holes are addressed...
So, he concluded, it would take about $88 billion a year to continue on with current modernization plans and current operating plans without today’s budget risk.
“That doesn’t buy you an extra ship, that doesn’t buy you an extra airplane, that doesn’t buy you an extra solider or sailor or airman or Marine,” he said.
“That just gets you where you need to be, fills in the hole.”...
"I’ll tell you right now, if I had $20 billion a year right now, I wouldn’t buy more force structure. I would really focus on cyber vulnerabilities, making sure the C4I (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence) grid is resilient, can withstand repeated assault,” Work said.
“I’m much more of a capabilities guys right now than I am a size guy. I know we’ve had this conversation over a long period of time: I’d like to have both – if we had enough money, man, that would be great. … There’s a lot of things we would want to fix before I’d say let’s start growing the size of the force."
more...
https://news.usni.org/2016/12/06/de...against-growing-military-size-over-capability
DEPSECDEF Work Cautions Trump Team Against Growing Military Size Over Capability
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The deputy secretary of defense told the incoming Trump administration that repealing the 2011 Budget Control Act spending caps would be a good start for helping the military but that additional money would likely only fill in budget holes rather than buy more ships and planes.
Bob Work, speaking Monday at the Future Strategy Forum at the United States Navy Memorial, said that even as much as $88 billion a year in additional defense spending would simply fill in “holes” in the budget rather than grow the fleet, and he advised against buying more platforms and people before these holes are addressed...
So, he concluded, it would take about $88 billion a year to continue on with current modernization plans and current operating plans without today’s budget risk.
“That doesn’t buy you an extra ship, that doesn’t buy you an extra airplane, that doesn’t buy you an extra solider or sailor or airman or Marine,” he said.
“That just gets you where you need to be, fills in the hole.”...
"I’ll tell you right now, if I had $20 billion a year right now, I wouldn’t buy more force structure. I would really focus on cyber vulnerabilities, making sure the C4I (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence) grid is resilient, can withstand repeated assault,” Work said.
“I’m much more of a capabilities guys right now than I am a size guy. I know we’ve had this conversation over a long period of time: I’d like to have both – if we had enough money, man, that would be great. … There’s a lot of things we would want to fix before I’d say let’s start growing the size of the force."
more...
$88 billion a year just to fill in the holes.. bloody hell.
I have to wonder if the size of the US forces are actually hurting them rather then helping.
Rather then increasing defence spending (which the country cant truly afford) they should shake the tree around and improve productivity (How many billions have been wasted time and again on cancelled projects that at times already have viable options existing that would require little to no modifications).
I have to wonder if the size of the US forces are actually hurting them rather then helping.
Rather then increasing defence spending (which the country cant truly afford) they should shake the tree around and improve productivity (How many billions have been wasted time and again on cancelled projects that at times already have viable options existing that would require little to no modifications).
They have bureaucratic issues and most of that is in the Pentagon, with some claims that there are more civilian bureaucrats in the DoD than service personnel in the USAF, US Army, USN, USMC & USCG. Part of the problem is that the Department of Defense is unable to undertake an audit so it actually doesn't know what it owns. Another problem is their budgetary and procurement processes and the political interference that they are subject too with pork barrel politics to the fore from Congress. Some severe rationalisation of their system would not go amiss. Mind you we all say that about our own countries defence funding and procurement processes as well sometimes
Boatteacher
Active Member
China evidently has come back (in response to Trump's "they stole it" accusation) and said they picked the UUV up, effectively like a bit of lost, unclaimed flotsam.
That doesn't accord with the story I originally recall reading, suggesting it was the end result of a cat and mouse game with the US ship nearby (and protesting at the time?).
Surely the USN should issue a clear statement as to what happened and certainly not be hesitant to call China out on their deceit (if that is what is it is; on which I pass no comment).
That doesn't accord with the story I originally recall reading, suggesting it was the end result of a cat and mouse game with the US ship nearby (and protesting at the time?).
Surely the USN should issue a clear statement as to what happened and certainly not be hesitant to call China out on their deceit (if that is what is it is; on which I pass no comment).
other chinese sources are stating that it was an unidentified shipping hazard
But it does highlight the security of UUVs and their data which I mentioned several posts back. Even though tactical UUVs are very different to this commercial type and their cruise profile may be very different, the security issue is not minor.other chinese sources are stating that it was an unidentified shipping hazard
Maybe a self destruct mechanism/sensor needs to be inserted in case of rogue retrieval.
its an interesting issue as research vessels are allowed to operate in an EEZ - and they usually are because they're non military vessels.
self destruct mechanisms on these vessels would make them non compliant
of course all this is postulated around the fact that everyone is playing under international rules
china is not
Doesn't need to be anything destructive, just needs to fry the data if the uuv is interfered with. I think the issue China has is they assume everyone else is as paranoid as they are, then again looking at the sort of leaders the world is churning out now they could have a point.
But it's not just the datspa but the entire drone tech including Nav system, command system ad nauseum. My guess is that this would be highly protected, navies aren't familiar with this todate.
Boatteacher
Active Member
CNN version of both sides -
The unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV), which the Pentagon also called an "ocean glider," was taken Thursday from the USNS Bowditch -- an unarmed oceanographic survey ship -- as it was attempting to retrieve it and another underwater vehicle, the Pentagon said.
A Chinese navy submarine rescue vessel launched a small boat and seized the vehicle. The Pentagon said the Chinese ship ignored repeated demands to return the vehicle from the USNS Bowditch.
A Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson denied the drone had been stolen, as Trump claimed in a tweet.
"First I want to say we strongly dislike the term 'steal' as it's entirely inaccurate," she said.
"The Chinese navy discovered the device -- and identified and verified it in a responsible and professional manner. Whether the device was lifted out of water and dragged in water, I think the key point was that the Chinese navy did so in a responsible and professional manner. And they did so to prevent it from harming navigational and personnel safety of passing ships."
The unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV), which the Pentagon also called an "ocean glider," was taken Thursday from the USNS Bowditch -- an unarmed oceanographic survey ship -- as it was attempting to retrieve it and another underwater vehicle, the Pentagon said.
A Chinese navy submarine rescue vessel launched a small boat and seized the vehicle. The Pentagon said the Chinese ship ignored repeated demands to return the vehicle from the USNS Bowditch.
A Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson denied the drone had been stolen, as Trump claimed in a tweet.
"First I want to say we strongly dislike the term 'steal' as it's entirely inaccurate," she said.
"The Chinese navy discovered the device -- and identified and verified it in a responsible and professional manner. Whether the device was lifted out of water and dragged in water, I think the key point was that the Chinese navy did so in a responsible and professional manner. And they did so to prevent it from harming navigational and personnel safety of passing ships."
Its only a commercial ROV, anyone could buy one through the list of advertisers on Sea Technology, Ocean News etc.... for about $150-200K USD
they'll be looking at the datasets. the chinese basically only started comprehending sophisticated datasets after they bought civilian transducers off of a scottish company in the late 90's
all that pre beijing olympics tech and engineering has been maximised since mid 2000's on.. eg they only got the dredging and reclamation tech from western engineering firms involved with hong kong airport at the turn of the prev decade.
the main thing about their behaviour is paranoia - because they know that they're way behind the curve on naval systems and navtech
the Type 52's, STOBAR carrier and their latest subs aren't the pinnacle of maritime tech - so they need to know how others operate.
even the ROV datasets are the equiv of someone giving them a spectrum guide and then telling them to build a bearer diagram around it.
not trying to understate the event here, but the actual haul bears little in gifts
I've not expressed it well enough. I understand the incident was a commercial relatively low tech drone.
My concern was about future UUVs for ASW/ASuW
yep, it has an immediate impact on ROVs (and I'm including all AUV, UUV, USV, UASW, UASuW tech under the ROV parent child umbrella) that are tethered or untethered
if I owned an autonomous ROV I'd be making it a UXO as well
Last edited: